COMPARE
Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF - Direct Plan - Growth Option vs Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan
Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF and Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund are both in the FoF Overseas category, from Axis Asset Management Co. Ltd. and Edelweiss Asset Management Limited respectively. Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF has the lower expense ratio. See the full table and FAQ below for the complete real-data comparison.
Basics
Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF has the lower direct-plan expense ratio, by 0.59 percentage points.
| Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF - Direct Plan - Growth Option | Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund - Growth Option - Direct Plan | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | FoF Overseas | FoF Overseas |
| AMC | Axis Asset Management Co. Ltd. | Edelweiss Asset Management Limited |
| Benchmark | BLOOMBERG US INTERMEDIATE TREASURY TRI | MSCI Europe Index (IEUR ETF) |
| NAV | ₹12.011 (2026-10-28) | ₹33.114 (2026-10-28) |
| AUM | ₹36.376 Cr | ₹265.602 Cr |
| Expense Ratio (Direct) | 0.09% | 0.68% |
| Inception | 2023-12-12 | 2014-01-17 |
Returns
Risk Metrics
Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund has been the more volatile of the two by standard deviation.
Portfolio Analytics
Punji Fund Health Score
Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF has the stronger Punji Quality grade of the two.
Frequently asked questions
Which has a lower expense ratio, Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF or Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund?
Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF's direct-plan expense ratio is 0.59 percentage points lower than Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund's. Over long holding periods, a persistent expense-ratio gap compounds into a materially different final corpus even if the two funds' gross returns are similar - it's one of the few fund attributes you can compare with total certainty upfront, unlike future returns, since the fee is contractually fixed rather than a historical estimate.
Which fund carries more risk, Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF or Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund?
By standard deviation (a measure of how much a fund's returns swing around its own average), Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund has been more volatile than Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF over the trailing window. Standard deviation captures total volatility in both directions - up and down - so a higher figure means bigger swings generally, not necessarily bigger losses specifically. Sharpe ratio (-0.05 for Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF vs 1.18 for Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund) is a better single measure of risk-adjusted return, since it weighs the return earned per unit of volatility taken rather than volatility alone.
Which has higher AUM, Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF or Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund?
Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund has ₹266 Cr in assets under management, versus ₹36 Cr for Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF. A larger AUM generally means deeper liquidity and lower per-unit fixed costs for the AMC to spread across investors, but an AUM that's very large relative to a fund's category and strategy (especially in small/mid cap categories, where the investable universe is smaller) can also make it harder for a manager to enter and exit positions without moving the price - bigger isn't automatically better, especially for less liquid categories.
Which fund has a longer track record, Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF or Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund?
Edelweiss Europe Dynamic Equity Offshore Fund launched on 2014-01-17, making it older than Axis US Specific Treasury Dynamic Debt Passive FOF (launched 2023-12-12). A longer track record means more real market cycles (bull runs, corrections, rate cycles) the fund has actually navigated, which is useful context for judging consistency - but it isn't a guarantee of future performance, and a newer fund isn't automatically worse, especially if it's run by an experienced manager or team with a track record at a prior fund.
Data as of 2026-10-29. Source: AMFI disclosures via Punji. Not investment advice.